Krzysztof Dmitruk
The active public
Literary Studies in Poland 9, 97-112
K rzysztof D m itruk
The A ctive Public
The poetic Epistles o f H orace offer the historian o f literary com m unication som e extrem ely interesting m aterial. We will concern ourselves here only with m atters directly linked with the title o f o u r paper. In the year 23 B. C. H orace w rote in the Epistle
to the P iso s:
T he flute — n o t, a s n o w , b o u n d w ith brass and a rival o f the trum pet, but slight and sim p le, w ith few s t o p s —w a s o n ce o f use to lead and aid th e ch o ru s and to fill w ith its breath b en ch es n ot yet to o cro w d ed , w here, to be sure, fo lk gathered, easy to c o u n t, b eca u se f e w —so b er fo lic , to o , an d ch a ste an d m o d est. But w hen a co n q u e r in g race began to w iden its d o m a in , and an am p ler w all em braced its cities, an d w h en , o n festal d ays, a p p ea sin g the G e n iu s by d a y lig h t drinking brought n o p en alty, then both tim e an d tune w on greater licen ce. F or w hat taste co u ld y o u e x p ect o f an un lettered th r o n g just freed from to il, rustic m ixed up with city fo lk , vu lgar w ith n o b ly b o r n ? 1
T his fragm ent contains two ideas th at deserve p articu lar attention. T hus ab ove all there appears the notion th at until relatively recently the public rem ained close-knit and hom ogeneous. The whole text is shot th ro u g h with a nostalgia for the tim es when these small (now adays we w ould w ithout d o u b t ad d the term “highly in teg rated ”) groups o f recipients gathered a ro u n d a stage th a t gave fo rth m o derate a n d m easured w ords an d tones. Even at this early date the source o f disturbances in co m m u nicatio n is discovered to lie in the processes o f dem ocratization and u rbanization, in dem ographic changes and shifts in m ores. N evertheless, a technical innovation w as held to have played an equal p a rt in the dem ise o f the old-tim e harm ony:
1 H o r a c e , A rs P o é tic a or E p istle to the P isos, [in:] S a tires, E p istle s and
A rs P o é tic a , transí. H . R u sh to n F a irclo u g h , L o n d o n 1926, pp. 467 — 469.
98 K r z y s z to f D m itru k
this is the brass stop th a t closed the ap ertu res o f the flute. From this m om ent on, those in possession o f “horses, p ro perty an d a noble sire” were to be scandalized by spectacles addressed b oth to them and to “the buyers o f roasted beans and ch estn u ts.” 2 M any years later we can read in a book by M aurice D escotes th at in the M iddle Ages the public was still hom ogeneous and “ in a cer tain sense” —the ideal. H ere too there app ears the ench anting vision o f the collective life o f bygone cities, whose inh ab itan ts are said to have wept in com m on du rin g d ra m a tiz atio n s o f the sufferings o f C hrist and to have split th eir sides laughing at a farce. N ot until the R enaissance was this unity shattered and the new type o f p o p u lar public b o rn —“the paying public.” 3 All of a sudden, everything becom es com plicated. In the course o f the sam e d ram a, one section in the audience weeps, a n o th e r laughs, whilst som e preserve the cool scepticism by which one know s the expert. W ithin one cham ber there is a conflict o f differing tastes and ethics and n ee d s.4
A u erb ach shifts the date o f the birth o f the public to the 17th ce n tu ry —strictly speaking, to the years after the death o f C ardinal M azarin and the first period in rule o f Louis XIV. T he new com m unity arose from a fusion o f the nobility (“the estate th a t h ad no function, but possessed the trappin gs o f pow er all the sam e” ) with a p art o f the third estate, which “fled” its class and ceased to produce and provide. The tw o groups m et and were one in their “parasitic uselessness and ideal o f cu ltu re.” 5 O ver and above the estates there em erged an intellectual fram ew ork th at ensured a relati vely high degree o f integration.
S artre however finds the 17th century still brim m ing with h arm on y and agreem ent. He uncovers the destruction o f this unity in the 18th century, but for all this situates the b irth o f the new — b o u rg e o is -public in the following century. S artre opposes to the “a c t i v e p u b l i c ” th at belongs to “good society” the passivity o f the burgeois public. His som ew hat wild m etap h o r o f cop ulatio n defines the essence
2 Ib id e m , p. 471.
3 M . D e s c o t e s , L e P u blic de th éâ tre e t son h isto ire, Paris 1964, pp. 2 5 — 26. 4 Ibidem , pp. 17 — 19.
? E. A u e r b a c h , “ La C o u r et la v ille ,” [in:] Vier U ntersuchungen zu r G e s
o f this distinction as follows. T he relationship between th e new bourgeois public and its au th o r rem inds the creato r of Situations o f intercourse between the female and the m ale: she “asks to be raped and im pregnated.” 6 The older public, by co ntrast, is m ore h erm aphroditic, insem inating itself, and doing so in a m an n er both elegant and conflict-free. F o r it is capable o f w r i t i n g w e ll itself, and expects no th ing new o f the au th o r. Conversely, the bourgeois p u b lic—as S artre d em o n strates—constitutes a single im mense “expec ta tio n ”, a peculiar variety o f void th at requires to be filled.7
It is n o t o u r intent here to docum ent the dispute concerning the genealogy o f the public, n o r to present a history o f th at p u b lic’s transform ation s. In any case, the dispute is w ide-spread and inveterate, touching on both general m atters and a host o f p articu lar problem s. It is often less a question o f the genesis o f the public th a n of ascertaining the m om ent a t which it lost the character o f a ho m ogeneous c o m m u n ity .8 M any researchers stress the crucial role of the 18th century (R. Escarpit, R aym ond W illiam s9), whilst fo r a cer tain grou p o f them , everything o f significance in this area stems from R om anticism .
Let us rep eat: we are not concerned with dates. T he fact w orthy o f atten tio n in and o f itself is th at attem p ts at thinking the to tality o f collective items involved in the literary exchange are accom panied by an ab and onm ent o f the view th at grants the p rim ary status to the literary text. O bviously, the param eters applied in the description o f the social position o f such texts are not the categories o f text-im m anence. N o r do they derive from the array o f instrum ents devised to exam ine the processes and psychological m echanism s of
6 J.-P . S a r t r e , W hat Is L itera tu re? , L on d on 1967, p. 116. 7 L. c.
8 C o m p a re S. Ź ó ł k i e w s k i ’s rem arks on the c o n c e p tio n s o f R. M ayo, Q . D . L eavis, P. R am sey etc. in “ P o la za in tereso w a ń w spółczesn ej so c jo lo g ii lite ratury” (T he C on cern s o f C on tem p o ra ry S o c io lo g y o f Literature), [in:] K u ltu ra —
so c jo lo g ia — s e m io ty k a lite ra c k a {C u ltu re — S o c io lo g y — L ite r a ry S e m io tic s), W arszaw a
1979.
9 R . W i l l i a m s , “ S p o łeczn a historia pisarzy a n g ie lsk ic h ” (The S o cia l H istory o f E nglish W riters); R. E s c a r p i t , “ Literatura a sp o łe c z e ń stw o ” (L iterature and S o ciety ), [in:] W k ręg u so c jo lo g ii lite ra tu ry {In the F ield o f L ite r a r y S o c io lo g y ), ed. by A . M en cw e l, W arszaw a 1977.
100 K r z y s z to f D m itru k
reception. In each o f the exam ples already q u o ted the factors in question were m acro-sociological: the structural changes in the area o f production and consum ption, the processes th a t replace elites, the developm ent o f co m m u n icatio n ’s technology, ecological events etc. The connections between the public and the overarching social system were arranged in a com plex m anner. It is w orth recalling not only the disposition o f forces in the aud ito riu m o f the theatre o f M oliere, but also the natu re o f the stage in E lizabethan England, in which bourgeois autho rs, bourgeois players and a bourgeois repertoire were m antain ed by the m onarch an d the aristocracy con cen trated aro u n d her. Louis X IV deployed the theatre in a socio- -technical m anner: w ith the help o f the tran sp a ren t language o f theatrical behaviour in a differentiated aud itoriu m , he carried out sophisticated political m anoeuvres. One should not overestim ate the im portance o f these fleeting alliances or exaggerate the degree of the unity achieved; nevertheless, one should adm it th at at th at tim e there arose a situation th at was n ew , som ething m ore th an a simple extension o f the social divisions o f pow er and property. All in all, one can say th at afte r its fashion the public particip ated in the conflicts of the ep o c h —and th at at times these conflicts were the fundam ental ones.
In reflections on the sociology o f literatu re an H o ratian optics prevails. C onsequently, the role o f structural and technological factors is stressed, the com position o f the public is determ ined, an d m odes o f handling messages are defined. D iachronic thinking establishes a sca le o f grow ing com plexity in the collectivity o f signs, and connects this problem with the grow th in size o f au d ito ria, with alterations in the com m unicative pow er o f particu lar technologies, an d with tran sfo rm atio n s in cultu ral sub-system s. O ne can enum erate w ithout difficulty the nodes aro u n d which the public, thus-conceived, crystal lizes. It collects a ro u n d : a) the m eans o f transm ission, b) the message, c) the sender, d) the com m unications system, e) social institutions, and finally, f) itself. T hus we have a public th a t reads an d listens, the public o f folk tableaux and The M arriage o f Figaro, o f Shake speare an d G oethe, a literary and a cinem atographic public, the public o f the aristocratic o r bourgeois salon o r th a t o f the consp iratorial organization etc. In each case, and as E scarpit believes, the public bears the consequences o f exceeding its own “critical m ass” —m a
101 nipulative d im ension —th at is, the small g ro u p th a t m akes possible various an d im m ediate form s o f c o n ta c t.10 These conceptions suggest th at the m ain role o f the com m unity is purely receptive. The functions o f the public ap p ear to dissolve at the m om ent at which con tact with the text is broken. The reader stops reading and is tran sp o rte d from the position o f m em ber o f a real public to a state o f tem po rary relaxation —to the region o f expectation occupied by the potential public. T he next bout o f reading forges the links anew, and once again the sociologist m akes the ap p ro p riate classifications: who, w hat, where, when, how m any tim e s ...
All this constitutes a very w ide-spread way o f presenting the m atter. T he a ttra ctio n o f this ap p roach lies in the fact th a t here everything can be determ ined and m easured. In this respect it has rung up its greatest successes in the sociology o f the theatrical public. T he institution o f the theatre extends its activity into a broadly ranging actuality. This is why one can introduce the param eters con cerning the technical frontiers o f com m unication (visibility and au d i bility), the problem s o f architecture and au ditoriu m lay-out, and the problem s o f the size, division, com position an d positioning o f the audience. A nalyses display significant distinctions between the sociology o f the parterre and th at o f the box, between aftern o o n m atinée and Sunday m orning publics, between the regular public and the seasonal one, and between the organized public and the crow d e t c . 11 There are few obstacles to catching the theatrical public “ in the ac t.” N o t only can one check the attendence and m easure the levels o f co n su m p tio n —one will even succeed in draw ing up a graph o f enthusiasm , coolness an d reserve. The richness o f the form o f expression is the researcher’s n atu ral ally. T hu s a m ultitude o f cultic patterns, m odes of ad o ratio n , o f protests, braw ls and d iso r ders, becom e subject to description. O ne can n o t but envy the th eatro- logist. F o r the groups he^ analyzes are form ally isolated, enclosed in the aud itorium like rats in a cage, an d patiently submissive to the gam ut o f his cognitive operations.
The literary public is ecologically dispersed: m ore often th an n ot it engages in its activity in a m anner th at is discreet an d elusive.
10 E s c a r p i t . op. c it., p. 231. 11 C f. E s c a r p i t , op. cit.
102 K r z y s z to f D m itru k
O bserved data are usually o f little interest an d generally lead to banal conclusions. The m ethodological inventiveness o f the researcher com m only goes no further th an diagram s an d barren statistics. F o r all that, we do not consider the object itself to have attained a form th a t fits it for such operations. Let us recall th a t in an o th er pap er we clearly distinguished the category o f the public understood as a tool for ordering research into the ph eno m ena o f literary reception and the form o f representation o f readerly activity. T hus one is not required to em ploy this category in analysis o f the process o f reading, o f styles o f reception, and o f the functions and types o f readerly behaviour. W e w rote then th at the public exists on a different plane th an th at o f readerly events and simple acts o f c o m m u n ic a tio n .12 It w ould be w orthw hile exploiting the category o f the public on a larger scale th an has been done hitherto, so as to exam ine those form s o f literary com m u nicatio n which otherw ise could not be observed or described at all. We have in m ind above all those activities that are not characterized by intim acy with the text. U p to now o u r research habits and stereotypes have discouraged such reflections. O nly the exceptional pap er concerns itself with such behaviour, and even in these cases it is relegated to the corpu s o f “subsidiary roles” th at accom pany the p rim ary literary task. T hus the m atter calls for a fundam ental exposition, which we will keep as b rief as possible.
A ccording to the view we are adopting, the literary public is conceived o f as a society o f a special ty p e .13 Obviously, the functioning o f this society is connected with (we eschew the w ord “depends o n ” ) systems o f com m unication and with the level o f technology w ith which th e literary m arket is endow ed. It seem s how ever th at equal im portance belongs to the situational fram ew ork th a t ensures people an indispensible degree o f freedom o f association, interchange o f opinion, and circulation o f inform ation, persons and things. If a d isp u te over the date o f birth o f m odern signifying com m unities is
12 K. D m i t r u k , “ L iteratura — k o m u n ik a cja — p u b lic z n o ść ” (L itera tu re—C o m
m u n ic a tio n — P ublic), P a m ię tn ik L ite r a c k i, 1978, fasc. 4.
I ł T h is n o tio n is q u ite an o b v io u s o n e , and is d ev e lo p e d relatively freq u en tly. Cf. for in sta n ce M. B r a d b u r y , The S o c ia l C o n te x t o f M o d e rn English L ite r a tu re , O xford 1972, p. 195.
103
unavoidable, we need not be throw n back on ab stract speculations. C om m on sense tells one to support those researchers who stress the significance o f the French R evolution (K. M annheim ) an d o f the conception o f inform ational liberalism th at stems from the spirit and econom ic ideas of Locke. We can find the new state o f affairs expressed in articles 10 and 11 o f the Declaration o f the Rights
o f M an o f 1789.14 The right to knowledge ab o u t oneself and the
world, an d the right to in form ation becom e as im p o rtan t in the m odern age as the right to bread and work.
We are concerned with a signifying collectivity th a t k n o w s it is a public and w is h e s (o r d o e s n o t w is h ) to rem ain one. We are not interested here in the case o f M r. Jo u rd ain , who had to be told th a t his activities belonged to a system and already had a nam e. We propose th at the term “ the active p ub lic” be ad o p ted : a term related only in p art to the S artrean form u lation s qu oted earlier. O u r understanding of the w ord “active” derives from a different tradition. This w ord functions within the confines o f a theory o f organizatio ns and situates itself in the field m arked out by the works o f W eber, B arnard, Simons, Etzioni, K urnal, and others. T he term refers to a com prehensive theory o f “the active society,” w ithin which the largest groups p articip ate in public life and so realize a m ultitude o f shared v a lu e s.15 “T o be active is to re act,” writes E tzio n i.16 T his theory also implies th at the values th a t con stitute the object o f the activities o f these particu lar groups do no t function solely by m eans o f the classic form o f verbal statem ent. T he collecti vity creates m ediating structures fo r them , thereby stabilizing the labile d om ain o f axiological beings. In this fashion there arises a “ reality o f activity” located between the w orld o f sym bols and the world o f nature. It is inhabited by the objectified traces o f the activities o f past generations, and by the recent results o f the ac ti
14 F. B a l l e , Institution e t p u b lic d es m o yen s d'in fo rm a tio n , P aris 1973, pp. 1 9 0 — 191. C f. a lso K . M a n n h e i m , " S p ołeczn e p rzyczyn y w sp ó łc z e sn e g o k ryzysu k u ltu ry ” (T he S ocial C a u se s o f the C urrent C risis in C u ltu re), [in:] C zło w ie k i sp o łe czeń
s tw o m d o b ie p rz e b u d o w y (M an a n d S o c ie ty in a T im e o f R econ stru ction ), W arszaw a
1974.
15 A . E t z i o n i , The A c tiv e S o c ie ty , N e w Y ork 1968, p. 12. Ift Ibidem , p. 13.
104 K r z y s z t o f D m itru k
vities o f various groups. In general these take th e form o f in stitu tions linked to a stratified system. N evertheless, they also possess their ow n internal structures. These acquire such a high degree o f institutional isolation th a t there m ay be p ro blem s concerning th eir identity, erosion and subjection to threat. T he literary public is en g a ged to a large m easure in supporting links in whose defence it accepts a ration al organization o f com m unity an d assem bly.
O f course, this does not m ean th at short-lived in stitu tion s play a m inor role in literary culture. Q uite the reverse. The vast m ajority o f the organizational form s assum ed by the signifying com m unity has ju st such a character. T he bases for integration are usually professional and local connections, environm ental involvem ents, t r a ditions, rituals and actual contracts. A- m ittedly, a public organized in this m ann er exists on a level o f interm ediate distinction from o th er social groups, is lim ited in range, and has im precise goals, b u t it also possesses considerable stru ctu ral elasticity, and is thu s able to survive crises by developing various form s o f action.
We accept W eber’s assum ption 17 th a t the active collectivity has at its disposal a rich rep ertoire o f co rp o rate structures, which re gulate the influx o f m em bers by m eans o f various system s o f requ ire m ents, prescriptions and in tiatory rites. A m ong the integrating ele m ents are both axio-aflfective com ponents th at are difficult to define and an addition al m ultiplicity o f social, econom ic an d political pressures.
The processes o f the institutionalizatio n o f the literary public were intensified during the initial period o f the m od ern fo rm ation , i.e ., according to o u r conception, at the tu rn o f the 18th a n d the beginning o f the 19th centuries. This is connected with the variety o f form s o f social life developed by salons, periodicals, reading- -room s, libraries, coffee houses an d scientific societies. T his set-up ensured regular contact an d m itigated the effects o f ecological dis persal a n d an im perfect system o f inform ational exchange. In alm ost every case in which an organized com m unicative g ro u p existed, one discovers institutional consolidation to have been a real c o n trib u to ry factor. O ften the succession o f phases in the fo rm atio n o f an active
17 M . W e b e r , The T heory o f S o c ia l a n d E conom ic O rg a n iza tio n , N e w Y o rk 1947.
105
public corresponded to m odifications in this factor. O ccasionally the com m unity acquired thereby a larger, better organized field in which to pursue its fruitful activity. O n o th er occasions, it lost its m aterial integrative centre and th ereafter h ad to rest co ntent with an intim acy based on signs alone.
O u r docum entatio n show s th a t the em ergence o f a distinct institution seldom occurs all at once. It is generally preceded by a period o f covert existence which rarely co n tain s all the elem ents o f its future activity. In a favourable situation, a stabilization, an assum ptio n o f rational structure, com es ab o u t.
We know o f various m eans w hereby a freshly em ergent group can be integrated into the global order. O ften it is enough merely to produce form al o r inform al, ritualized o r private, evidence o f social presence. Some signifying com m unities how ever have developed a com plicated system o f m aterial and sym bolic form s o f integration. The conclusion o f such actions is the acceptance o f a bill o r statute, the elab o ratio n o f an organization al schem a, com plete with a division o f roles and an hierarchy o f specializations an d ends. C o n trary to appearances, the active pub lic does not defend itself against such a change in the institution. In o u r culture, “to belong t o . . . ” tends to be the object o f strategy, striving, an d even favouritism . It is difficult to define unam biguously w hat benefit individuals and groups derive from such form s o f collective p articip atio n in literary com m unication. We now know th at it is no t ju st a sim ple m atter o f receptive activity. A n outside view discovers only th e variety o f h u m an m otivations: circles, clubs, com m ittees, unions, etc., all serve different ends. T heir activities d o not always coincide with the ideas preserved in the w ords and sym bols o f official declarations. The m a tte r is clear-cut, however, w henever the collectivity treats the organizational stru cture as an i n s t r u m e n t . This is the case in intellectual groupings. A political circle is a set o f m eans and forces th a t favour w orking u po n oneself, social education, and the crystallization o f a world-view. B ut it is a different m atter when the group holds the institution itself to be t h e u l t i m a t e e n d . H ere activity becom es rem iniscent o f a gam e, a n d en tertain m en ts o f this type are som etim es am biguo us ones. U sually, however, this is only the excess o f collective energy finding a jo y o u s o utlet —a t the cost o f literature. T hen fellow lovers o f literatu re give literary banquets,
106 K r z y s z to f D m itn ik
organize jubilees an d cam paigns, fund prizes, raise m onum ents, write letters, o r —at “M eet the a u th o r” soirees—cram poets w ith rancid dairy pro d u cts and fruits in a state o f advanced ferm entatio n.
G enerally speaking, one can say th at the source o f an indiv idu al’s aspirations to p articipate in som e such signifying collectivity lies in a m otivational system th a t com prises three basic factors o f a ttra c tio n : 1) a com m on aim , 2) collective activity, 3) belonging to a g r o u p .18 This view enables one to u nd erstan d the fact th a t the very n atu re o f the co n tact th a t occurs between the m em bers o f an active public can o f itself provide a sufficient cause o f association. It provides a large num ber o f satisfactions flowing from the level o f the achieved co m m u n ity —satisfactions which need have no conn ection with their prim ary roles as readers. It is also w orth considering the fact th at the overall notion o f integration em braces fo u r separate types o f in teg ratio n : 1) cultural integration, which includes the sphere o f cul tu ral p attern in g ; 2) norm ative integration, arising from a basis o f conform ism , o f h arm ony between norm and b eh a v io u r; 3) co m m unicative integration, depending u p o n the exchange o f signs; an d 4) functional integration, generated by th e exchange o f serv ic es.19 Thus th e active public creates a characteristic fram ew ork o f social interaction. It functions continuously, independently o f any strains between the individual elem ents o f its activity. We have becom e accustom ed to isolate the roles o f sender and receiver an d to trea t them as if they m ade possible the execution of vario u s once-and-for- -all actions prescribed by a p artic u la r role: the sender tran sm its the text —the receiver receives it. T his conception takes idealization to the b rin k o f falsity. F o r we are dealing here w ith a series o f actions o r —as the theory o f org anizatio ns w ould have it —w ith “a co n tin u o u s process o f interaction betw een a m u ltitu d e o f roles and the persons who occupy them an d are linked by an in fo rm a
18 W. J a c h e r , “W sp ó łcz esn e k on cep cje integracji sp o łec zn y ch w so c jo lo g ii” (C o n tem p o ra ry C o n c e p tio n s o f S o cia l In tegration in S o c io lo g y ), S tu d ia S o c jo lo g ic zn e , 1971, n o . 3, p. 86.
|l) W. S. L a n d e c k e r , “T y p es o f In tegration a n d M easu rem en t," [in:] The
L angu age o f S o c ia l R esearch . A R e a d e r in the M e th o d o lo g y o f S o c ia l R esearch ,
tional n etw o rk .” 20 T he social role o f the w riter involves the excecu- tion o f a wide variety o f activities, few o f them directly connected w ith the creation and transm ission o f the literary text. T he same applies to the m em ber o f the literary public: he p articipates in various interactions, in which reaction to sym bols is connected with a large num b er o f form s o f institutional representation. These form s ensure the necessary degree o f internal o rd er an d m ake possible the relay o f organizational experience. T he successively em ergent signi fying com m unities do not begin in a v a c u u m .21 They exploit the established social p attern s for com m unicative roles. These p attern s form a m ore o r less coherent system and alter far m ore slowly than the sets o f activities th a t serve to realize this system.
W ithin E uropean culture there prevails a m odel o f hierarchical connections, one in which cooperative relations are subjugated to relations o f subm ission. The consequences o f this can be seen in the m eta-language and self-definitions o f literary behaviour. In ge neral, the p attern s o f ch arism atic rule are em ployed, p attern s within which belief in the leader determ ines the positions o f all the p a rti cipants in the collectivity. C om m unicative practices, however, bring into existence a com pletely different arran gem ent o f social roles. The public constitutes a global organization that provides the basic co nditions for the p ro d u ctio n and co nsum ption o f texts. T hus it creates its own “productive co re,” calling fo rth the roles o f distribu tor, supplier and receiver.22 In T. K o tarb in sk i’s fo rm u la tio n ,23 all the “ca rriers” o f these roles co n trib u te to “the success o f the w hole.” T hus a pragm atic m odel o f the literary com m unity ca n n o t have an hierarchical structure, even though the p articip an ts in such a group are usually possessed o f an hierarchical consciousness. So in o rd er to illustrate the state o f affairs in question, ra th e r th an using the
20 A . K. K o ś m i ń s k i “ P rocesy in form acyjn o-d ecyzyjn e" (In fo r m a tio n a l-d e c isio n al P rocesses). |i n :] O rg a n iza cje. S o cjo lo g ia stru k tu r, p ro c e só w , ró l (O rg a n iza tio n s.
The S o c io lo g y o f S tru ctu re s, P ro cesses, R oles), ed. by W . A d a m sk i. W arszaw a 1976,
p. 105.
21 Ib id em , p. 108.
22 J. G . M a r c h . H. A . S i m o n , T eoria o rg a n iza c ji (The T heory o f O rg a n i
za tio n s). W arszaw a 1964, p. 89.
2i T. K o t a r b i ń s k i , T ra k ta t o d o b re j ro b o c ie (A T ract C oncerning G o o d W ork), W arszaw a 1958, p. 75.
108 K r z y s z to f D m itru k
figure o f a pyram id, we em ploy a series o f intersecting circles. The result o f o u r analysis so far is th at the stru ctu re o f the active public is a dynam ic one, an d co ntain s w ithin itself conflicts an d contradictions. C reative artists aim to achieve a n o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e c r e a t i v e ty p e . T his term is derived fro m M ann heim an d refers to a form o f organizatio n th a t favours in no vatio n. T his ideal is m ore o f a socio-technical one an d com prises the follow ing elem ents: liberalism , m ultilevel activity, a prevalence o f pro fession al loyalty over o rganizational pressures, a restriction o f external hierarchical control, a dispersal o f pow er, the dom inance o f links betw een collea gues, indeterm inacy o f organizatio nal structure, an d a loose structure open to co n stan t re stru ctu ratio n and change. T he re ad in g public prefers an organization o f the o r g a n i c type, w ithin which a com m on system o f interests, values and needs com pensates for the lack o f specialization. M ost often how ever this culm inates in a m e c h a n i c a l form o f integration, u nder ,the sway o f specialization, defined p osi tions and tasks, chains o f inform ation flow e tc .24 T h u s the interests in question are contrad ictory. Even when their p ro g ram m e does no t oppose change, the receivers wish to p articipate in determ ining the direction it is to take. Each successive choice m ade w ith ou t th eir willing consent limits the field o f choice for the next actio n. G ra d u a l ch an g e—change th at is a ttu n e d to the com m unicative experience o f the entire co m m u n ity —is m ore usefully effective. The active public is conscious o f the various dangers an d anom alies m anifested by social life. As G offm an says, it d o esn't w ant “ to be h a d ” : it is careful and attentive. It is vigilant, gathering reading experience and draw ing pratical conclusions. One o f the m ost im p o rtan t functions becom es th at o f control. H ere everyone con trols everything an d everyone else: receivers—authors, an d a u th o rs —receivers. The supervised su p er vise the supervision them selves. A lthough we are accu stom ed to o b serving the functioning o f coherent, co ncen trated instances o f co n tro l, this control-m echanism app ears in a dispersed form . In actuality one has to speak o f the entire field o f literary con tro l, w ithin which are organized particu lar specialized centres. W itho ut d o u b t one o f these is literary criticism.
24 A . Z. K a m i n s k i . “T y p y struktur b iu rok ratyczn ych a ra cjo n a ln o ść o r g a n izacyjn a” (T ypes o f B ureaucratic Structure and O r g a n iz a tio n a l R a tio n a lity ), [in:]
109
O ne m ay assum e with G offm an th at the public brings forth a te a m , the activity o f which is com pletely different from th at o f p articu lar individuals. The existence o f a team is m ost evident w hen it “tu rn s to ” an o th er team . The con tact and interplay between these tw o instances represent an im p o rtan t co m pon ent o f public life. W ithin this team hierarchical relations prevail, roo m is provided fo r the roles o f leader an d vedette. Its activities rely on a series o f interaction s th a t are adjusted according to the social a n d com m unicative s itu a tio n .25 In E tzioni’s view these functions are fulfilled by various elites which contro l a chosen area o f social activity, collect and ord er inform ation, com pare program m es, strengthen or w eaken directive signals etc. In o u r case it- is n o t ju s t a question o f achieving the optim al (desired) relationship between literary p ro d uction and consum ption. R ather, these activities are carried o u t in the interest o f the entire literary system. They aim to m aintain its life, to preserve its co n tinuity and efficiency o f com m unication. C o n tro l is transferred to the interior o f the o rg an ization an d assum es the character of self-control. The public has at its disposal a rich repertoire o f m eans to regulate, punish, rew ard, exert pressure, and to repress. A s we know, it deploys them eagerly and often. The essential role, however, belongs to the som ew hat u n d erh an d m e chanism th at extorts from activities a conform ism vis à vis accepted values and norm s. It goes by th e nam e o f “p o ten tializatio n ” and is based on the replacem ent o f contro l by the possibility o f a p plying i t . 26
T h e practices th at regim ent literary freedom are accom panied by a n o th e r paradoxical phenom enon. We believe the fun dam en tal problem o f literary cu lture to be the m atter o f borders. T he public know s the regulations concerning their violation, an d it also know s how to behave so as to preserve them intact. It develops special rules fo r avoiding hazards, circum navigating p roh ib itio ns, an d m odi fying distances. The selfcontained reality o f literary ritu al serves this purp o se: the reality o f those “form al an d conventional acts
25 E. G o f f m a n , L a M ise en scèn e de la vie qu otidienne, vol. 1, P aris 1973, pp. 9 3 - 103.
26 B. K. K u c , “ K o n tr o la o rg a n iza cy jn a ” (O rgan ization al C o n tr o l), [in:] O rg a
110 K r z y s z t o f D m itru k
through which individuals m anifest their subm issiveness and respect tow ards the object o f ab solute values which represents th em .” 27 T he reperto ire o f rituals is im mense. The circum stances o f their origin have not been explained satisfactorily for all ca ses.28 All the same, we know th at they fulfil the essential function o f defending the system against the th rea t o f change. The m echanism s o f its self-regulation are guided by the stabilizing potential o f ritual. At crucial m om ents there occurs a change in the rules, a revolt against an im posed and internalized conform ism . It w ould how ever be w rong to ascribe a fundam ental role in the functioning o f literary culture to the process by which com m unicative rituals are b orn an d rejected. F o r it is the results o f this process th at are o f decisive significance. T here arise large areas o f sem iotic u n c e r t a i n t y . This fact co nstitu tes the actu al m echanism o f self-regulation: the active public governs by m eans o f th at “u n ce rtain ty ” 29 m aintaining the literary system relatively balanced and favourable to itself.
O ne should p u t aside subtle disquisitions on the poetics o f recep tio n .F o r as a rule their sole fruits are idyllic visions. In the intra- textual sphere there is no room fo r m acro-social conflicts. The scenarios o f behaviour contained in virtual constructions aw ait real ization. U ntil th at actually takes place, the w ork in fact rem ains neutral. But the au th o r who participates in the public finds him self in a different situation. H e ceaselessly chooses and is chosen. T hat sociologist was right w ho stated th at the fun dam ental unit o f public life is the relationship: “a lo n e — w ith.” -,()
T he essence o f literary exchange can be represented in the form o f vectors facing in different directions. In the m athem atical exercises with which I was once torm ented, two trains departed from distant stations an d approached one an o th er at varying speeds. A ttem pts were m ade to convince me th a t one could calculate the p oin t a t which they w ould meet —b ut I refused to accept this idea. I had no faith in the engine-drivers. T he staff th a t directs literary com m unications
27 G o f f m a n , op. c it., pp. 7 3 — 180, 2 1 5 —225. 28 Cf. V. T u r n e r , The R itu a l P ro cess, L o n d o n 1969.
29 J. S t a n i s z k i s , “ Struktura ja k o rezultat p ro cesó w ad ap tacyjn ych w o rg a n izacji” (Structure as the R esu lt o f A d a p ta tio n a l P rocesses w ithin an O rgan ization ), [in:] O rg a n iza c je , p. 174.
111 is w ithout d o u b t m ore efficient th an the staff o f the railw ay, bu t even here the unexpected can occur. W riters arrive to o early, and the public arrives crim inally late. O r vice versa. In this case, the phenom enon o f public activity can be described by creatin g a form ula for sim ultaneous consideration o f the activities o f all the participants in a com m unity. This is som ething o f which the sociology o f the th eatre is well aw are: it exam ines the com edies played out b oth onstage and in the au ditorium . The same task faces us.
Let us return to H orace. Ever since the period o f the R o m antics we have been slaves to the fascination o f a som ew hat strange vision o f literary com m unication. A “w a rm ” (better still—a fevered) public su rrounds its poet, hangs u p o n his every w ord, receives the w ord like a com m union, founds a cult u p o n it, an d preserves and re activates it in sudden bouts o f furious reading. A m ystery o f d isp en sa tion is celebrated, there reigns a state o f perpetual sem iotic hunger and boundless gratitude is felt tow ards the beneficent creator. The public atten ds to the seer on bended knees, falling h eadlong before him in m om ents o f ecstasy and shedding tears o f em otion. H o race him self knew o f such situations, bu t he also knew th a t they are not the whole tru th concerning the ties o f literary com m unication. He draw s a different picture. H ere is a public th at flees from the “lunatic p o et,” who
is m ad. and. like a bear, if he has had strength to break the c o n fin in g bars o f his cage, he puts learned and unlearned alik e to (light by the sc o u r g e o f his recitals. If he ca tch es a m an. he h o ld s him fast a n d reads him to death —a leech that w ill n ot let g o the skin, till gorged w ith b lo o d .-,2
T he vision is a suggestive and instructive one. The poet hurtles along “with head upraised ” an d “splutters verses.” “ M en o f sense” flee from him. Only raw and “ ra sh ” boys rem ain within his sphere o f action. G azing at the heights o f fam e, the luckless seer finally stum bles into a ditch or a well. His cries for help are pointless: no one intends to help him. Then H orace reveals th e essential, fundam ental am biguity o f the task o f the w ord-sm ith: above all, it is not “very clear how he com es to be a verse-m onger” (the
•U D e s c o t e s , op. cit.. p. 20. H o r a c e , op. cit.. p. 288.
112 K r z y s z t o f D m itru k
theoretician even advances the em barrassing insinuation “ has he defi led ancestral ash es?”). H is o th er intentions are equally difficult to fathom . P erhaps “he threw h im self in on p u rpo se and does not wish to be saved?” In the interests o f stoic h u m anitarianism and balance in com m unication H orace instructs one to leave the poet in the ditch. “W ho saves a m an against his will does th e same as m urder him ,” he writes, in the spirit o f the age. He also form ulates a universal m essage: “ let poets have the right an d pow er
to destroy them selves.” 33 T he public jealously g u ard s this rig h t: it perm its the poet to die. In the physical sense: o f h un ger; in the com m unicative sense: o f indifference and discouragem ent. T his aspect o f the functioning o f the active public is o f particularly m om entous cultural significance. It is a sign o f society’s coldness an d cruelty, bu t it also co ntain s a dose o f collective optim ism an d m agnanim ity: it bears a hope th a t a t least som e a u th o rs will find the m isdeeds o f their pens forgotten —an d thus forgiven.
T ransi, by P a u l C o a te s